Cato the Elder has a post at Too Conservative that is worth checking out, The Anatomy of an (Almost) Failed Treasury Auction.
Here is a Businessweek article for comparison, U.S. 30-Year Yields Climb Amid Lower-Than-Average Sale Demand.
February 13, 2010
PAST TIME TO PUT THE BRAKES ON TAXING AND SPENDING
Comments Off
February 11, 2010
ARE YOU A GUTSY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN?
H/T to From on High (see The Question Conservative Republicans Dread).
Here is how the story begins.
Schools: The Education Department is getting one of its largest spending increases under the president’s proposed budget. And what can the country expect in return for all this added spending? Not much. (continued here)
Our nation is broke. Our economy spirals slowly downward – and for what, Federal Government spending programs that don’t even work? For the sake of our children, we the people must demand spending cuts. We must elect leaders with the courage to make cuts.
The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to spend our money on public education. Our Federal officials have also shown themselve incompetent to spend our money on public education. Nonetheless, even when it has become obvious to all that we are going broke, these same people intend to increase education spending?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. — (Author unknown)
Consider the methods that brought us to this point. They are blatantly dishonest. When they fund the Education Department, our Federal officials break their oath of office; they abuse their authority. When we trust the education of our children to oath breakers, what results should we expect? What results have we gotten?
Comments Off
January 12, 2010
WHEN AND WHERE WILL IT BEGIN?
To predict the fate of our own generation, we can review history and extrapolate the consequences of our behavior into the future. What is readily obvious is that we have forsaken both moral and fiscal discipline. When nations forsake moral and fiscal discipline, what happens? They decline in economic and military power. The inevitable result? Rapacious neighbors seek to take what they otherwise might have purchased at a fair price.
The notion that the United States has ever been able to control world events by itself is, of course, nonsense. Even moderate success at such efforts requires alliances. Unfortunately, there is little chance the leadership we have elected will forge any kind of useful alliances. Our current leaders seek only to fasten their grip on power. They would rather borrow from future generations and build up petty political patronage empires. Their tool of choice is the “modern” welfare state. So it is that the most powerful nation in the world is quickly squandering its wealth and influence.
Currently, Iran is the threat that most concerns us. Thus, an editorial in the Washington Times speaks of bombs.
Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, an important Iranian nuclear scientist, was killed yesterday by a bomb planted outside his home. Iran has accused Israel and the United States of assassinating Mr. Ali-Mohammadi in an attempt to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear program. If true, such short-of-war methods could be seen as a means of preventing a larger conflict or paving the way for more deadly operations.
The Obama administration’s diplomatic outreach effort is dead, too. The mullahs met President Obama’s outstretched hand with an extended middle finger. Iran announced in November that it planned to construct 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a development former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix called “puzzling” because “even big countries don’t have ten enrichment plants.” Last month, top-secret technical notes from Iran’s nuclear program were leaked that detailed research on a neutron initiator, the triggering mechanism for an atomic bomb. (continued here)
But nothing is simple. So the Wall Street Journal provides a somewhat less alarmist perspective.
“The reports about his assassination are suspicious,” said a university colleague in a telephone interview. “In the current circumstances in Iran, anything is possible. We are afraid this might be the start of retaliation against professors who criticize the government,”
Prof. Mohammadi’s membership in Iran’s broadly defined nuclear-science brain trust also raised questions about whether the attack was related to the country’s controversial nuclear program. Iran says it is pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, but Western officials allege it is seeking weapons.
Last year, the U.S. imposed a year-end deadline for progress in talks over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Washington has threatened fresh economic sanctions.
State media identified Mr. Mohammadi as a nuclear physicist. But he was best known for his work in mathematical physics and theoretical, high-energy physics, according to one colleague, who was also a former student.
That could lump his work into the broad category of nuclear science, but colleagues said it had little to do with practical, nuclear technology. A spokesman for Iran’s atomic agency, Ali Shirzadian, told the Associated Press that the professor had no link with the agency responsible for Iran’s nuclear program. (from here)
Therefore, the loss of this scientist will have no practical effect on Iran’s nuclear arms program, and we are left to wonder. What are we dealing with? The Christian Science Monitor offers this suggestion.
“It usually takes a long time before they [the Iranian government] make any comment but in this particular case one official after another… came out with the same line, that he was a nuclear physicist and was assassinated by Iran’s enemies,” Iranian analyst Sadegh Saba told the BBC.
Relatives and colleagues of the scientist say they are scared that the government has begun an assassination campaign intended to intimidate their opposition into silence.
“First it was Mousavi’s nephew, now Ali-Mohammadi,” said one Tehran-based academic who asked for anonymity. “They’re showing that they will stop at nothing. ” (from here)
Perhaps we are dealing with the kind of men who will stop at nothing. Such will unleash the dogs of war.
Comments Off
January 9, 2010
A DEFINITION OF PROGRESS
What is theTruth?
What is the Truth? Sometimes it is hard to say. We each have own point-of-view, and we each fear a loss of ego if we are found to be wrong. So sometimes we are just reluctant to believe the truth. Unfortunately, sometimes we practice deceit. We lie. In the name of pride, greed, or a “holy cause”, we lie.
Would you like an example of when it is hard to know the Truth? Smash Mouth Politics did a bit of research. That resulted in this post, Joseph Roger O’Dell, III. Before you read the rest of this post, I suggest you read Joseph Roger O’Dell, III. That post recites the FACTS (taken directly from the Va Supreme Court decision turning down O’Dell’s appeal) that lead to Joseph Roger O’Dell, III execution. Here is an online source (Federal as opposed to state, but the same FACTS).
So how is this an example of the difficulty of determining the Truth?
So how is this an example of the difficulty of determining the Truth? In addition to the court record, Smash Mouth Politics linked to a couple of anti-death penalty websites. These websites spin a different tale than that provided by the court record (See here and here.). Why the differing versions? One reason might be money.
- Anti-death penalty organizations have to raise money. For them to successfully raise money, their potential supporters have to see the need to open their wallets and contribute.
- For the sake of profitable ratings, the corporate news media must have something keep people watching, listening, and reading. Dog bites man does not excite much interest. Whereas, man bites dog excites great curiosity.
Unfortunately, few people know how to double-check accuracy of anti-death penalty stories. So fraudulent stories can easily thrive.
So what is the moral of the Smash Mouth post?
So what is the moral of the Smash Mouth post? Supposedly, we live in the Information Age. We derive this title by focusing upon our tools. Unfortunately, this focus causes us to think as materialists. Real progress depends upon changing our character, not our tools.
Consider what happens in eras where liars thrive and abound? Men cannot focus on their work. Instead, they must constantly verify each other’s words and deeds. Thus, progress grinds to a halt.
So what should we call this age?
So what should we call this age? I wished we would and could call it the Christian Age, a period that began with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since the death and resurrection of Christ, men have shown a greater tendency to see other men as their brothers. As Christian brothers and sisters, we can develop and support a bond of trust.
Why is that trust important? Why is the character of man more important than his tools? Look again at the great volumes of information we process. Consider the power of that information. What is the good of it if we cannot trust it? Does information have any utility and value if it is not accurate. Is a computer is of any use if we put garbage into it? Is it not true that when we put garbage into a computer, we can only get garbage out?
Look again at information technology; it has a well-defined limits. Honorable people must be involved. The collection and dissemination of accurate information depends upon the religious beliefs of the people involved. Without honorable people, we cannot trust the information on our computers. Without trust between men, we cannot create an Information Age. We can only create the darkness of a Dark Age.
One last thought.
It is easy enough to google Joseph Roger O’Dell, III execute. When we read some of the hits, we are left with the impression of a reasonable doubt and a man wrongly executed. Yet a jury of our fellow citizens convicted O’Dell and decided he should be executed.
O’Dell was indicted for capital murder, abduction, rape, and sodomy. On his own motion, and after a court-appointed psychiatrist determined him competent, O’Dell quite ably defended himself pro se, with court-appointed attorney Paul Ray serving as standby counsel. O’Dell was tried, and, on September 10, 1986, the jury convicted him on all counts. The next day, the jury fixed his sentence for murder at death. The jury’s recommendation of death was based on its finding that both of Virginia’s statutory aggravating factors — future dangerousness and vileness — had been proven. (from here)
Were they wrong? Before we assume so, perhaps we ought to consider their side of the story.
January 3, 2010
A GAP TOO WIDE AND TOO DEEP TO BRIDGE
I use to have a page I called Bridge Makers, and I even identified a couple of Bridge Makers: Bridge Makers: Coming Together to Face the Next Crisis and Bridge Maker Post at the Virginian Federalist. On this page I acknowledged those bloggers who set aside partisan differences to come to the aid of a neighbor. My goal was to encourage my fellow bloggers to see other bloggers as neighbors as opposed to Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, and so forth. Unfortunately, it has been awhile since I saw a blog post I could call a Bridge Maker. The last I saw was on August 5, 2007.
What is the problem? Why have Bridge Makers become so rare? I fear ideological lines have hardened. Congress’ latest activities illustrate this all too well. The health care bill the Senate just passed (see here), can hardly be described as bipartisan legislation. Not one single Republican could be found willing to vote for it.
When do nations become so divided against each other? Generally, I think the problem starts when one group of citizens adopts beliefs and practices that set them at odds with their neighbors. The problem becomes insolvable when this group of citizens demands that their neighbors also adopt those beliefs and practices. Then we have cultural warfare.
What are the implications for the future? Because we tend to repeat the same mistakes as our forebears, we study history. When was the last great American Cultural War? That war occurred over slavery and resulted in the Civil War. In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville described the effects of slavery in 1831 and 1832 America. He observed racial prejudice against the Negro in both the free state of Ohio and the slave state of Kentucky. Nonetheless, the North wanted no part of slavery. Why? The North understood slavery as harmful to the moral fiber of the master.
The influence of slavery extends still further; it affects the character of the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and his tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio, the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic; but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two States. The white inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the principal aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry and ever-varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path which fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer with the same indifference, and he supports, with equal constancy, the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.
But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the undertakings which labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money loses a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.
As the same causes have been continually producing opposite effects for the last two centuries in the British colonies of North America, they have established a very striking difference between the commercial capacity of the inhabitants of the South and those of the North. At the present day it is only the Northern States which are in possession of shipping, manufactures, railroads, and canals. This difference is perceptible not only in comparing the North with the South, but in comparing the several Southern States. Almost all the individuals who carry on commercial operations, or who endeavor to turn slave labor to account in the most Southern districts of the Union, have emigrated from the North. The natives of the Northern States are constantly spreading over that portion of the American territory where they have less to fear from competition; they discover resources there which escaped the notice of the inhabitants; and, as they comply with a system which they do not approve, they succeed in turning it to better advantage than those who first founded and who still maintain it. (from here)
The labor of the free man is much more effective and efficient than that of a slave, but slavery undermines the disposition of men to respect the value of their own labor. This attitude towards labor eventually affected the manners of the different regions.
I have already explained the influence which slavery has exercised upon the commercial ability of the Americans in the South; and this same influence equally extends to their manners. The slave is a servant who never remonstrates, and who submits to everything without complaint. He may sometimes assassinate, but he never withstands, his master. In the South there are no families so poor as not to have slaves. The citizen of the Southern States of the Union is invested with a sort of domestic dictatorship, from his earliest years; the first notion he acquires in life is that he is born to command, and the first habit which he contracts is that of being obeyed without resistance. His education tends, then, to give him the character of a supercilious and a hasty man; irascible, violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient of obstacles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his first attempt.
The American of the Northern States is surrounded by no slaves in his childhood; he is even unattended by free servants, and is usually obliged to provide for his own wants. No sooner does he enter the world than the idea of necessity assails him on every side: he soon learns to know exactly the natural limit of his authority; he never expects to subdue those who withstand him, by force; and he knows that the surest means of obtaining the support of his fellow-creatures, is to win their favor. He therefore becomes patient, reflecting, tolerant, slow to act, and persevering in his designs.
In the Southern States the more immediate wants of life are always supplied; the inhabitants of those parts are not busied in the material cares of life, which are always provided for by others; and their imagination is diverted to more captivating and less definite objects. The American of the South is fond of grandeur, luxury, and renown, of gayety, of pleasure, and above all of idleness; nothing obliges him to exert himself in order to subsist; and as he has no necessary occupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not even attempt what would be useful.
But the equality of fortunes, and the absence of slavery in the North, plunge the inhabitants in those same cares of daily life which are disdained by the white population of the South. They are taught from infancy to combat want, and to place comfort above all the pleasures of the intellect or the heart. The imagination is extinguished by the trivial details of life, and the ideas become less numerous and less general, but far more practical and more precise. As prosperity is the sole aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained; nature and mankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage, and society is dexterously made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members, whilst individual egotism is the source of general happiness.
The citizen of the North has not only experience, but knowledge: nevertheless he sets but little value upon the pleasures of knowledge; he esteems it as the means of attaining a certain end, and he is only anxious to seize its more lucrative applications. The citizen of the South is more given to act upon impulse; he is more clever, more frank, more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant. The former, with a greater degree of activity, of common-sense, of information, and of general aptitude, has the characteristic good and evil qualities of the middle classes. The latter has the tastes, the prejudices, the weaknesses, and the magnanimity of all aristocracies. If two men are united in society, who have the same interests, and to a certain extent the same opinions, but different characters, different acquirements, and a different style of civilization, it is probable that these men will not agree. The same remark is applicable to a society of nations. Slavery, then, does not attack the American Union directly in its interests, but indirectly in its manners. (from here)
Thus, Southerners bequeathed to their children the sin of slavery and the desire to spread the institution of slavery to other states. Thus also, Northerners bequeathed to their children an abhorrence for slavery. Eventually, the dispute descended into violence.
Do we today have a similar problem? It seems to me that we do. We have leaders intent upon dividing us into two camps: those who receive welfare of the state and those who pay taxes. Much like the slaveholders of the past, these leaders pay no attention to either the constitutionality or the morality of the peculiar welfare institutions they have devised. All that matters to these leaders is convincing enough parasites that it is their personal interest to enslave their tax paying neighbors. Of course, this sort of attitude towards taxation is not healthy.
When the people find they can vote themselves money; that will herald the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin
When we give our leaders such power, they cannot be trusted with it. There is no honor among thieves. And when any excuse can separate a man from the fruit of his labors, an honest day’s work loses both its value and honor. Then the villains impoverish us all.
December 29, 2009
THE UNRAVELING GAINS MOMENTUM
I just finish reading a post at Smash Mouth Politics about a story that most likely has the rapt attention of more than a few folks, Isreal about to do what the rest of the world refuses to do. It appears Israel is getting ready to go after Iran’s nuclear facilities. That, of course, will rile more than a few Muslims fanatics. Unfortunately, the cost, particularly for Israel, of not riling Muslim fanatics would be far higher.
So what can we do? The cost of freedom is more than just eternal vigilance. We must get involved and do some hard work. Don’t think so? Need motivation? May I suggest this post, FAMILY FOUNDATION DAY AT THE CAPITOL, at the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance? The excerpt from Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is quite timely.
